Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #546812 > unrolled thread

2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 15:10 -0600
    Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-20 21:28 +0000
      Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 09:58 -0600
        Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-23 19:02 +0000
          Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 21:56 -0600
            Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-01-24 20:11 -0800
              Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 22:21 -0600
                Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-01-24 23:39 -0500
                Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-25 04:44 +0000
                Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-01-25 07:51 -0800
                  Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 12:05 -0600
                    Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-01-25 15:48 -0500
                    Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-01-26 00:22 -0800
                      Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 08:18 -0600
                        Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-26 19:15 +0000
              Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 22:40 -0600
                Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-25 05:10 +0000
                  Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 23:50 -0600
                    Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-25 06:59 +0000
                      Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 08:14 -0600
                        Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-25 19:21 +0000
            Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-01-24 20:51 -0800
              Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 22:55 -0600
                Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-01-24 22:26 -0800
            Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-25 04:42 +0000
              Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 23:52 -0600
                Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-25 06:59 +0000
                  Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 08:15 -0600
                    Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-25 19:22 +0000
    Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 07:33 +0100
      Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-01-21 06:41 +0000
        Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 08:04 +0100
          Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-01-21 07:14 +0000
            Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-21 20:16 +0000
    Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-01-21 13:20 -0800
      Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 15:51 -0600
        Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-01-25 12:48 -0800
          Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:31 -0600
            Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 21:50 -0500
            Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 12:01 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#546812 — 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record

2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201512


> Global highlights: Calendar Year 2015
>
> For extended analysis of global climate patterns, please see our full
> Annual report

> During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean
> surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average. This was
> the highest among all 136 years in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing
> the previous record set last year by 0.29°F (0.16°C) and marking the
> fourth time a global temperature record has been set this century.
> This is also the largest margin by which the annual global
> temperature record has been broken. Ten months had record high
> temperatures for their respective months during the year. The five
> highest monthly departures from average for any month on record all
> occurred during 2015.

> Record warmth was broadly spread around the world, including Central
> America, the northern half of South America, parts of northern,
> southern, and eastern Europe stretching into western Asia, a large
> section of east central Siberia, regions of eastern and southern
> Africa, large parts of the northeastern and equatorial Pacific, a
> large swath of the western North Atlantic, most of the Indian Ocean,
> and parts of the Arctic Ocean.

> During 2015, the globally-averaged land surface temperature was
> 2.39°F (1.33°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest
> among all years in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous
> record of 2007 by 0.45°F (0.25°C). This is the largest margin by
> which the annual global land temperature has been broken.

> During 2015, the globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.33°F
> (0.74°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among
> all years in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record of
> last year by 0.20°F (0.11°C).

> Looking above Earth's surface at certain layers of the atmosphere,
> several different analyses examined NOAA satellite-based data records
> for the lower and middle troposphere and the lower stratosphere.

> The 2015 temperature for the lower troposphere (roughly the lowest
> five miles of the atmosphere) was third highest in the 1979-2015
> record, at 0.65°F (0.36°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed
> by the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). It was also third
> highest on record, at 0.47°F (0.26°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as
> analyzed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). Record warmth was observed
> during the September–November seasonal period as well as December.

> The 2015 temperature for the mid-troposphere (roughly two miles to
> six miles above the surface) was third highest in the 1979–2015
> record, at 0.49°F (0.27°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed
> by UAH, and fourth highest on record, at 0.40°F (0.22°C) above the
> 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by RSS. A routine University of
> Washington post-analysis found the UAH and RSS values to be 0.65°F
> (0.36°C) and 0.54°F (0.30°C), respectively, above the 1981–2010
> average, both ranking third highest. Record warmth was observed
> during the September–November seasonal period as well as December.

> An independent assessment of the mid-troposphere, derived from
> weather balloons, found the mid-troposphere departure to be 0.92°F
> (0.51°C) above the 1981–2010 average, the highest in the 58-year
> period of record. Record warmth was observed during the
> September–November seasonal period as well as December.

> The temperature for the lower stratosphere (roughly 10 miles to 13
> miles above the surface) was 13th lowest in the 1979–2015 record, at
> 0.56°F (0.31°C) below the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by UAH, and
> 14th lowest on record, at 0.40°F (0.22°C) below the 1981–2010
> average, as analyzed by RSS. The stratospheric temperature is
> decreasing on average while the lower and middle troposphere
> temperatures are increasing on average, consistent with expectations
> in a greenhouse-warmed world.

> According to data from NOAA analyzed by the Rutgers Global Snow Lab,
> the average annual Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during 2015
> was 9.5 million square miles. This was the 11th smallest annual snow
> cover extent since records began in 1968 and smallest since 2008. The
> first half of 2015 saw generally below-normal snow cover extent, with
> above-average coverage later in the year.

> Recent polar sea ice extent trends continued in 2015. The average
> annual sea ice extent in the Arctic was 4.25 million square miles,
> the sixth smallest annual value of the 37-year period of record. The
> annual Antarctic sea ice extent was the third largest on record, at
> 4.92 million square miles, behind 2013 and 2014.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#546818

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record
>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201512
> 

The global annual temperature is all smoke and mirrors and meaningless.

Surface measurements have urban areas overrepresented which raises
the average due to the urban heat island effect and wilderness areas
under represnted which has who knows what kind of effect.

The only data that is anywhere near global is satellite data and
even that is skewed by orbits.

But it is all much ado about nothing as nothing is effected by this
global annual temperature other than hysterical Chicken Littles.

Random weather fluctuations have orders of magnitude more effect.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#547504

On 1/20/16 3:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> The global annual temperature is all smoke and mirrors and meaningless.
>
> Surface measurements have urban areas overrepresented which raises
> the average due to the urban heat island effect and wilderness areas
> under represnted which has who knows what kind of effect.
>
> The only data that is anywhere near global is satellite data and
> even that is skewed by orbits.
>
> But it is all much ado about nothing as nothing is effected by this
> global annual temperature other than hysterical Chicken Littles.
>
> Random weather fluctuations have orders of magnitude more effect.
>



   Now, now, jimp, you should read the following material for content,
   as you can learn some of the risks associated with rapidly changing
   climate.

2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record
 > http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201512


 > Global highlights: Calendar Year 2015
 >
 > For extended analysis of global climate patterns, please see our full
 > Annual report

 > During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean
 > surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average. This was
 > the highest among all 136 years in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing
 > the previous record set last year by 0.29°F (0.16°C) and marking the
 > fourth time a global temperature record has been set this century.
 > This is also the largest margin by which the annual global
 > temperature record has been broken. Ten months had record high
 > temperatures for their respective months during the year. The five
 > highest monthly departures from average for any month on record all
 > occurred during 2015.

 > Record warmth was broadly spread around the world, including Central
 > America, the northern half of South America, parts of northern,
 > southern, and eastern Europe stretching into western Asia, a large
 > section of east central Siberia, regions of eastern and southern
 > Africa, large parts of the northeastern and equatorial Pacific, a
 > large swath of the western North Atlantic, most of the Indian Ocean,
 > and parts of the Arctic Ocean.

 > During 2015, the globally-averaged land surface temperature was
 > 2.39°F (1.33°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest
 > among all years in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous
 > record of 2007 by 0.45°F (0.25°C). This is the largest margin by
 > which the annual global land temperature has been broken.

 > During 2015, the globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.33°F
 > (0.74°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among
 > all years in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record of
 > last year by 0.20°F (0.11°C).

 > Looking above Earth's surface at certain layers of the atmosphere,
 > several different analyses examined NOAA satellite-based data records
 > for the lower and middle troposphere and the lower stratosphere.

 > The 2015 temperature for the lower troposphere (roughly the lowest
 > five miles of the atmosphere) was third highest in the 1979-2015
 > record, at 0.65°F (0.36°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed
 > by the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). It was also third
 > highest on record, at 0.47°F (0.26°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as
 > analyzed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). Record warmth was observed
 > during the September–November seasonal period as well as December.

 > The 2015 temperature for the mid-troposphere (roughly two miles to
 > six miles above the surface) was third highest in the 1979–2015
 > record, at 0.49°F (0.27°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed
 > by UAH, and fourth highest on record, at 0.40°F (0.22°C) above the
 > 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by RSS. A routine University of
 > Washington post-analysis found the UAH and RSS values to be 0.65°F
 > (0.36°C) and 0.54°F (0.30°C), respectively, above the 1981–2010
 > average, both ranking third highest. Record warmth was observed
 > during the September–November seasonal period as well as December.

 > An independent assessment of the mid-troposphere, derived from
 > weather balloons, found the mid-troposphere departure to be 0.92°F
 > (0.51°C) above the 1981–2010 average, the highest in the 58-year
 > period of record. Record warmth was observed during the
 > September–November seasonal period as well as December.

 > The temperature for the lower stratosphere (roughly 10 miles to 13
 > miles above the surface) was 13th lowest in the 1979–2015 record, at
 > 0.56°F (0.31°C) below the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by UAH, and
 > 14th lowest on record, at 0.40°F (0.22°C) below the 1981–2010
 > average, as analyzed by RSS. The stratospheric temperature is
 > decreasing on average while the lower and middle troposphere
 > temperatures are increasing on average, consistent with expectations
 > in a greenhouse-warmed world.

 > According to data from NOAA analyzed by the Rutgers Global Snow Lab,
 > the average annual Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during 2015
 > was 9.5 million square miles. This was the 11th smallest annual snow
 > cover extent since records began in 1968 and smallest since 2008. The
 > first half of 2015 saw generally below-normal snow cover extent, with
 > above-average coverage later in the year.

 > Recent polar sea ice extent trends continued in 2015. The average
 > annual sea ice extent in the Arctic was 4.25 million square miles,
 > the sixth smallest annual value of the 37-year period of record. The
 > annual Antarctic sea ice extent was the third largest on record, at
 > 4.92 million square miles, behind 2013 and 2014.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#547605

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/20/16 3:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> The global annual temperature is all smoke and mirrors and meaningless.
>>
>> Surface measurements have urban areas overrepresented which raises
>> the average due to the urban heat island effect and wilderness areas
>> under represnted which has who knows what kind of effect.
>>
>> The only data that is anywhere near global is satellite data and
>> even that is skewed by orbits.
>>
>> But it is all much ado about nothing as nothing is effected by this
>> global annual temperature other than hysterical Chicken Littles.
>>
>> Random weather fluctuations have orders of magnitude more effect.
>>
> 
> 
> 
>   Now, now, jimp, you should read the following material for content,

Now, now, ass hat, you should take your propaganda and shove it up
your copyright violating ass.



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#547878

On 1/23/16 1:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Now, now, ass hat, you should take your propaganda and shove it up
> your copyright violating ass.


   Now, now, jimp, you're obsessive nature is outta control, and your
   absolute contempt and total disgust are addressed in these Anger
   Management classes. You, jimp, need these services:
 > http://yellowpages.com/rancho-cucamonga-ca/anger-management-classes



2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record
 > http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201512


 > Global highlights: Calendar Year 2015
 >
 > For extended analysis of global climate patterns, please see our full
 > Annual report

 > During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean
 > surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average. This was
 > the highest among all 136 years in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing
 > the previous record set last year by 0.29°F (0.16°C) and marking the
 > fourth time a global temperature record has been set this century.
 > This is also the largest margin by which the annual global
 > temperature record has been broken. Ten months had record high
 > temperatures for their respective months during the year. The five
 > highest monthly departures from average for any month on record all
 > occurred during 2015.

 > Record warmth was broadly spread around the world, including Central
 > America, the northern half of South America, parts of northern,
 > southern, and eastern Europe stretching into western Asia, a large
 > section of east central Siberia, regions of eastern and southern
 > Africa, large parts of the northeastern and equatorial Pacific, a
 > large swath of the western North Atlantic, most of the Indian Ocean,
 > and parts of the Arctic Ocean.

 > During 2015, the globally-averaged land surface temperature was
 > 2.39°F (1.33°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest
 > among all years in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous
 > record of 2007 by 0.45°F (0.25°C). This is the largest margin by
 > which the annual global land temperature has been broken.

 > During 2015, the globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.33°F
 > (0.74°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among
 > all years in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record of
 > last year by 0.20°F (0.11°C).

 > Looking above Earth's surface at certain layers of the atmosphere,
 > several different analyses examined NOAA satellite-based data records
 > for the lower and middle troposphere and the lower stratosphere.

 > The 2015 temperature for the lower troposphere (roughly the lowest
 > five miles of the atmosphere) was third highest in the 1979-2015
 > record, at 0.65°F (0.36°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed
 > by the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). It was also third
 > highest on record, at 0.47°F (0.26°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as
 > analyzed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). Record warmth was observed
 > during the September–November seasonal period as well as December.

 > The 2015 temperature for the mid-troposphere (roughly two miles to
 > six miles above the surface) was third highest in the 1979–2015
 > record, at 0.49°F (0.27°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed
 > by UAH, and fourth highest on record, at 0.40°F (0.22°C) above the
 > 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by RSS. A routine University of
 > Washington post-analysis found the UAH and RSS values to be 0.65°F
 > (0.36°C) and 0.54°F (0.30°C), respectively, above the 1981–2010
 > average, both ranking third highest. Record warmth was observed
 > during the September–November seasonal period as well as December.

 > An independent assessment of the mid-troposphere, derived from
 > weather balloons, found the mid-troposphere departure to be 0.92°F
 > (0.51°C) above the 1981–2010 average, the highest in the 58-year
 > period of record. Record warmth was observed during the
 > September–November seasonal period as well as December.

 > The temperature for the lower stratosphere (roughly 10 miles to 13
 > miles above the surface) was 13th lowest in the 1979–2015 record, at
 > 0.56°F (0.31°C) below the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by UAH, and
 > 14th lowest on record, at 0.40°F (0.22°C) below the 1981–2010
 > average, as analyzed by RSS. The stratospheric temperature is
 > decreasing on average while the lower and middle troposphere
 > temperatures are increasing on average, consistent with expectations
 > in a greenhouse-warmed world.

 > According to data from NOAA analyzed by the Rutgers Global Snow Lab,
 > the average annual Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during 2015
 > was 9.5 million square miles. This was the 11th smallest annual snow
 > cover extent since records began in 1968 and smallest since 2008. The
 > first half of 2015 saw generally below-normal snow cover extent, with
 > above-average coverage later in the year.

 > Recent polar sea ice extent trends continued in 2015. The average
 > annual sea ice extent in the Arctic was 4.25 million square miles,
 > the sixth smallest annual value of the 37-year period of record. The
 > annual Antarctic sea ice extent was the third largest on record, at
 > 4.92 million square miles, behind 2013 and 2014.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#547883 — Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:0Kydnf0fLNJIATjLnZ2dnUU7-VudnZ2d@giganews.com...

> 2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201512

If one has an agenda, they can manipulate data
to fit their predetermined agenda. Therefore you
should not be so gullible to believe whatever
they say.

First check some facts --> http://alturl.com/a2pts

In the era of satellite data, 1998 was the warmest
"on record".                           http://alturl.com/672qt 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#547886 — Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not

On 1/24/16 10:11 PM, Andrew wrote:
> If one has an agenda, they can manipulate data
> to fit their predetermined agenda. Therefore you
> should not be so gullible to believe whatever
> they say.

   Do you have evidence that climate scientists are manipulate data
   to fit their predetermined agenda?  Cite credible evidence please!

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#547889 — Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 22:21:42 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

>On 1/24/16 10:11 PM, Andrew wrote:
>> If one has an agenda, they can manipulate data
>> to fit their predetermined agenda. Therefore you
>> should not be so gullible to believe whatever
>> they say.
>
>   Do you have evidence that climate scientists are manipulate data
>   to fit their predetermined agenda?  Cite credible evidence please!

Where there is smoke, there is fire ... and warming where there was
none.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#547896 — Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/16 10:11 PM, Andrew wrote:
>> If one has an agenda, they can manipulate data
>> to fit their predetermined agenda. Therefore you
>> should not be so gullible to believe whatever
>> they say.
> 
>   Do you have evidence that climate scientists are manipulate data
>   to fit their predetermined agenda?  Cite credible evidence please!

That is a red herring.

Compare the much touted recent surface data with the satellite and
balloon data.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#548005 — Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:0Kydnf4fLNJLPzjLnZ2dnUU7-VudnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Andrew wrote:
>
>> If one has an agenda, they can manipulate data
>> to fit their predetermined agenda. Therefore you
>> should not be so gullible to believe whatever
>> they say.
>
>   Do you have evidence that climate scientists are manipulate data to fit their predetermined agenda?

Yes, there is evidence that some have. This is general knowledge.

 http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

> Cite credible evidence please!

No problem, but I notice that you tend to delete evidence that you
don't like.

 https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/ 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#548031 — Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not

On 1/25/16 9:51 AM, Andrew wrote:
>
> No problem, but I notice that you tend to delete evidence that you
> don't like.
>
>   https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/

   I'm glad you like your data, Andrew. I put some together myself. You
   may point out faults in my offering, if you like.

The Greenhouse Gas Effect
   http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/Week1.html

Oceans Acidification
   http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/Week2.html

Effects of Warming
   http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/Week3.html




-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#548092 — Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:05:20 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

>On 1/25/16 9:51 AM, Andrew wrote:
>>
>> No problem, but I notice that you tend to delete evidence that you
>> don't like.
>>
>>   https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/
>
>   I'm glad you like your data, Andrew. I put some together myself. You
>   may point out faults in my offering, if you like.
>
>The Greenhouse Gas Effect
>   http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/Week1.html
>
>Oceans Acidification
>   http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/Week2.html
>
>Effects of Warming
>   http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/Week3.html

Why did you snip the context? He replied to your question. What do
your links have to do with your question?

Your post is a non sequitur and does not refute the reply you asked
for.

Your sig says you post generate discussion.

Don't run away from a reply that responded to your request.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#548230 — Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:0_ydnemNwpd9_jvLnZ2dnUU7-N2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Andrew wrote:
>>
>> No problem, but I notice that you tend to delete evidence that you
>> don't like.
>>
>>   https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/
>
>   I'm glad you like your data, Andrew.

I do not "like'' my data. I just want the truth.

>   I put some together myself. You
>   may point out faults in my offering, if you like.

Why, since your practice is to refuse to look
at anything that refutes your premise?

You simply delete it without comment, as
you did here.

If you loved truth, you would not be afraid
of any evidence that exposes your errors.

>
> The Greenhouse Gas Effect
>   http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/Week1.html
>
> Oceans Acidification
>   http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/Week2.html
>
> Effects of Warming
>   http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/Week3.html 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#548277 — Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not

On 1/26/16 2:22 AM, Andrew wrote:
> I do not "like'' my data. I just want the truth.


   The route toward the truth is taking the time to weed the wheat
   from the chaff. Nobody can do that for you. May I suggest you
   look at the observables over the last 50 years.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#548344 — Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/26/16 2:22 AM, Andrew wrote:
>> I do not "like'' my data. I just want the truth.
> 
> 
>   The route toward the truth is taking the time to weed the wheat
>   from the chaff. Nobody can do that for you. May I suggest you
>   look at the observables over the last 50 years.
 
And when one actually does that, one finds that the accuracy of the
surface temperature stations are quite a bit greater than 1 degree, making
claims of a global temperature estimate to 0.01 degree ludicrous. 
 
This is worse than high school level science; thinking an average value
is more accurate than the raw measurments.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#547890 — Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not

On 1/24/16 10:11 PM, Andrew wrote:
> If one has an agenda, they can manipulate data
> to fit their predetermined agenda. Therefore you
> should not be so gullible to believe whatever
> they say.


   What the science says:
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm

> Exhibit No. 1 of the climate conspiracy theory is a collection of
> emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University
> of East Anglia (UEA), which appeared on the internet in November
> 2009. Though some of these "Climategate" emails can sound damning
> when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the
> scientists. The most comprehensive inquiry, the Independent Climate
> Change Email Review, did something the media completely failed to do:
> it put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations.
> Its general findings (summarised here) were that the scientists'
> rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not
> prejudice the advice given to policymakers, though they did fail to
> display the proper degree of openness.
>
> One set of allegations against CRU concern its main area of research,
> the instrumental temperature record CRUTEM. The CRUTEM analysis is
> very similar to those produced by independent groups such as NASA’s
> Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and NOAA’s National
> Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Nevertheless, the contrarians allege
> that CRU manipulated data to fabricate a global warming trend; that
> CRU prevented critics from accessing the raw data and other
> information required to check its conclusions; and that CRU director
> Phil Jones failed to admit having cited fraudulent data twenty years
> ago. Thus they claim CRUTEM cannot be trusted.
>
> To create the CRUTEM surface temperature analysis, CRU scientists
> take temperature data from 4,138 stations, and for each station they
> calculate the mean temperature for 1961-1990 and temperature
> anomalies relative to that period. They then arrange all this data
> into a 5x5 degree grid. This process requires that adjustments be
> made to account for sources of error such as changing station
> locations or urban heat island effect.
>
> Following Climategate, several amateur climate bloggers have
> attempted their own analyses of global temperature trends, and
> arrived at very similar results to CRU, GISS, and NCDC. The Review
> took a similar approach, going back to primary sources and obtaining
> raw station data to see if it was possible for critics to replicate
> CRU’s results. They were able to acquire as much data as necessary
> from both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and the
> National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). They proceeded to
> write the computer code needed to analyse the data in the space of
> two days, without requiring any information from CRU.
>
> Thus the Review demonstrated that CRU was not hiding anything:
> sufficient data was available to replicate CRU’s results, and any
> competent researcher would be able to analyse it. Furthermore, they
> had nothing to hide: both adjusted and unadjusted data yielded very
> similar results to CRUTEM, and CRU’s homogenisation adjustments make
> no significant difference to the global average. Although the Review
> stopped short of drawing scientific conclusions, it appears that
> CRU’s conclusions are robust.
>
> Based on this, the Review concluded (its emphasis):
>
> CRU was not in a position to withhold access to [temperature] data or
> tamper with it. We demonstrated that any independent researcher can
> download station data directly from primary sources and undertake
> their own temperature trend analysis.
>
> On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find
> no evidence of bias. Our work indicates that analysis of global land
> temperature trends is robust to a range of station selections and to
> the use of adjusted or unadjusted data. The level of agreement
> between independent analyses is such that it is highly unlikely that
> CRU could have acted improperly to reach a predetermined outcome.
> [1.3.1]
>
> This is stated more explicitly in Chapter 6:
>
> It is impossible for a third party to tamper improperly with the data
> unless they have also been able to corrupt the GHCN and NCAR sources.
> We do not consider this to be a credible possibility, and in any case
> this would be easily detectable by comparison to the original NMO
> records [6.4]
>
> The Review also considered the availability of metadata; that is,
> whether there was enough information available to identically
> replicate CRUTEM. As noted above, the computer code was no problem.
> Getting an exact list of temperature stations included in CRUTEM was
> more of an issue. Such a list was provided with the first version of
> CRUTEM in 1986, but CRU neglected to update it in the latest version,
> CRUTEM3, published in 2006. An up-to-date list was not released until
> October 2007, in response to an FoI request. Even then, the Review
> Team found it was not straightforward to identify all the stations,
> due to a lack of standardisation. However, 90% could be matched with
> stations in the GHCN database, and CRU informed them that the
> remaining 10% could be obtained from other sources such as the
> relevant National Meteorological Office. As a “test case”, the Review
> did obtain data directly from the Japanese NMO.
>
> The Review makes the following criticism of CRU:
>
> CRU should have made available an unambiguous list of the stations
> used in each of the versions of [CRUTEM] at the time of publication.
> We find that CRU’s responses to reasonable requests for information
> were unhelpful and defensive. [1.3.1]
>
> The inquiry also briefly dealt with the allegation “that Jones was
> complicit in malpractice in failing to respond appropriately to
> allegations of fraud made against […] Professor Wei-Chyung Wang”,
> whose data Jones cited in a 1990 paper on the urban heat island
> effect. The allegedly “fabricated” claim was that few if any of a
> certain selection of Chinese weather stations had moved over time.
> Wang’s university investigated and rejected the accusation of fraud.
> Meanwhile, Jones responded within one year with a peer-reviewed
> analysis confirming the original conclusions. In any case, this was
> only one paper and does not change anything we know about the urban
> heat island effect.
>
> The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the
> extent to which CRU’s work in this area could be trusted and should
> be relied upon and we find no evidence to support that implication.
> [1.3.1]
>
> Despite being heralded as “the final nail in the coffin of
> anthropogenic global warming”, Climategate has not even invalidated
> CRU's results, let alone the conclusions of the climate science
> community. In any case, the entire work of CRU comprises only a small
> part of the large body of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.
> That mountain of evidence cannot be explained away by the behaviour
> of a few individuals.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#547913 — Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/16 10:11 PM, Andrew wrote:
>> If one has an agenda, they can manipulate data
>> to fit their predetermined agenda. Therefore you
>> should not be so gullible to believe whatever
>> they say.
> 
> 
>   What the science says:
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm

Did you get permission to copy all that copyrighted material?

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#547923 — Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not

On 1/24/16 11:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Did you get permission to copy all that copyrighted material?



   What the science says:
 > http://www.skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm

 > Exhibit No. 1 of the climate conspiracy theory is a collection of
 > emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University
 > of East Anglia (UEA), which appeared on the internet in November
 > 2009. Though some of these "Climategate" emails can sound damning
 > when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the
 > scientists. The most comprehensive inquiry, the Independent Climate
 > Change Email Review, did something the media completely failed to do:
 > it put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations.
 > Its general findings (summarised here) were that the scientists'
 > rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not
 > prejudice the advice given to policymakers, though they did fail to
 > display the proper degree of openness.
 >
 > One set of allegations against CRU concern its main area of research,
 > the instrumental temperature record CRUTEM. The CRUTEM analysis is
 > very similar to those produced by independent groups such as NASA’s
 > Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and NOAA’s National
 > Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Nevertheless, the contrarians allege
 > that CRU manipulated data to fabricate a global warming trend; that
 > CRU prevented critics from accessing the raw data and other
 > information required to check its conclusions; and that CRU director
 > Phil Jones failed to admit having cited fraudulent data twenty years
 > ago. Thus they claim CRUTEM cannot be trusted.
 >
 > To create the CRUTEM surface temperature analysis, CRU scientists
 > take temperature data from 4,138 stations, and for each station they
 > calculate the mean temperature for 1961-1990 and temperature
 > anomalies relative to that period. They then arrange all this data
 > into a 5x5 degree grid. This process requires that adjustments be
 > made to account for sources of error such as changing station
 > locations or urban heat island effect.
 >
 > Following Climategate, several amateur climate bloggers have
 > attempted their own analyses of global temperature trends, and
 > arrived at very similar results to CRU, GISS, and NCDC. The Review
 > took a similar approach, going back to primary sources and obtaining
 > raw station data to see if it was possible for critics to replicate
 > CRU’s results. They were able to acquire as much data as necessary
 > from both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and the
 > National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). They proceeded to
 > write the computer code needed to analyse the data in the space of
 > two days, without requiring any information from CRU.
 >
 > Thus the Review demonstrated that CRU was not hiding anything:
 > sufficient data was available to replicate CRU’s results, and any
 > competent researcher would be able to analyse it. Furthermore, they
 > had nothing to hide: both adjusted and unadjusted data yielded very
 > similar results to CRUTEM, and CRU’s homogenisation adjustments make
 > no significant difference to the global average. Although the Review
 > stopped short of drawing scientific conclusions, it appears that
 > CRU’s conclusions are robust.
 >
 > Based on this, the Review concluded (its emphasis):
 >
 > CRU was not in a position to withhold access to [temperature] data or
 > tamper with it. We demonstrated that any independent researcher can
 > download station data directly from primary sources and undertake
 > their own temperature trend analysis.
 >
 > On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find
 > no evidence of bias. Our work indicates that analysis of global land
 > temperature trends is robust to a range of station selections and to
 > the use of adjusted or unadjusted data. The level of agreement
 > between independent analyses is such that it is highly unlikely that
 > CRU could have acted improperly to reach a predetermined outcome.
 > [1.3.1]
 >
 > This is stated more explicitly in Chapter 6:
 >
 > It is impossible for a third party to tamper improperly with the data
 > unless they have also been able to corrupt the GHCN and NCAR sources.
 > We do not consider this to be a credible possibility, and in any case
 > this would be easily detectable by comparison to the original NMO
 > records [6.4]
 >
 > The Review also considered the availability of metadata; that is,
 > whether there was enough information available to identically
 > replicate CRUTEM. As noted above, the computer code was no problem.
 > Getting an exact list of temperature stations included in CRUTEM was
 > more of an issue. Such a list was provided with the first version of
 > CRUTEM in 1986, but CRU neglected to update it in the latest version,
 > CRUTEM3, published in 2006. An up-to-date list was not released until
 > October 2007, in response to an FoI request. Even then, the Review
 > Team found it was not straightforward to identify all the stations,
 > due to a lack of standardisation. However, 90% could be matched with
 > stations in the GHCN database, and CRU informed them that the
 > remaining 10% could be obtained from other sources such as the
 > relevant National Meteorological Office. As a “test case”, the Review
 > did obtain data directly from the Japanese NMO.
 >
 > The Review makes the following criticism of CRU:
 >
 > CRU should have made available an unambiguous list of the stations
 > used in each of the versions of [CRUTEM] at the time of publication.
 > We find that CRU’s responses to reasonable requests for information
 > were unhelpful and defensive. [1.3.1]
 >
 > The inquiry also briefly dealt with the allegation “that Jones was
 > complicit in malpractice in failing to respond appropriately to
 > allegations of fraud made against […] Professor Wei-Chyung Wang”,
 > whose data Jones cited in a 1990 paper on the urban heat island
 > effect. The allegedly “fabricated” claim was that few if any of a
 > certain selection of Chinese weather stations had moved over time.
 > Wang’s university investigated and rejected the accusation of fraud.
 > Meanwhile, Jones responded within one year with a peer-reviewed
 > analysis confirming the original conclusions. In any case, this was
 > only one paper and does not change anything we know about the urban
 > heat island effect.
 >
 > The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the
 > extent to which CRU’s work in this area could be trusted and should
 > be relied upon and we find no evidence to support that implication.
 > [1.3.1]
 >
 > Despite being heralded as “the final nail in the coffin of
 > anthropogenic global warming”, Climategate has not even invalidated
 > CRU's results, let alone the conclusions of the climate science
 > community. In any case, the entire work of CRU comprises only a small
 > part of the large body of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.
 > That mountain of evidence cannot be explained away by the behaviour
 > of a few individuals.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#547951 — Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/16 11:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Did you get permission to copy all that copyrighted material?
> 
> 
> 
>   What the science says:

What the rules of society say:

You shall observe copyrights.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#547988 — Re: 2015 is Earth's warmest year - not

On 1/25/16 12:59 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> What the rules of society say:
>
> You shall observe copyrights.


   Now, now, jimp, you're obsessive nature is outta control, and your
   absolute contempt and total disgust are addressed in these Anger
   Management classes. You, jimp, need these services:
 > http://yellowpages.com/rancho-cucamonga-ca/anger-management-classes

   If you will remember, jimp, Andrew was question the integrity of the
   Climatologists.

   What the science says:
 > http://www.skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm

 > Exhibit No. 1 of the climate conspiracy theory is a collection of
 > emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University
 > of East Anglia (UEA), which appeared on the internet in November
 > 2009. Though some of these "Climategate" emails can sound damning
 > when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the
 > scientists. The most comprehensive inquiry, the Independent Climate
 > Change Email Review, did something the media completely failed to do:
 > it put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations.
 > Its general findings (summarised here) were that the scientists'
 > rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not
 > prejudice the advice given to policymakers, though they did fail to
 > display the proper degree of openness.
 >
 > One set of allegations against CRU concern its main area of research,
 > the instrumental temperature record CRUTEM. The CRUTEM analysis is
 > very similar to those produced by independent groups such as NASA’s
 > Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and NOAA’s National
 > Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Nevertheless, the contrarians allege
 > that CRU manipulated data to fabricate a global warming trend; that
 > CRU prevented critics from accessing the raw data and other
 > information required to check its conclusions; and that CRU director
 > Phil Jones failed to admit having cited fraudulent data twenty years
 > ago. Thus they claim CRUTEM cannot be trusted.
 >
 > To create the CRUTEM surface temperature analysis, CRU scientists
 > take temperature data from 4,138 stations, and for each station they
 > calculate the mean temperature for 1961-1990 and temperature
 > anomalies relative to that period. They then arrange all this data
 > into a 5x5 degree grid. This process requires that adjustments be
 > made to account for sources of error such as changing station
 > locations or urban heat island effect.
 >
 > Following Climategate, several amateur climate bloggers have
 > attempted their own analyses of global temperature trends, and
 > arrived at very similar results to CRU, GISS, and NCDC. The Review
 > took a similar approach, going back to primary sources and obtaining
 > raw station data to see if it was possible for critics to replicate
 > CRU’s results. They were able to acquire as much data as necessary
 > from both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and the
 > National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). They proceeded to
 > write the computer code needed to analyse the data in the space of
 > two days, without requiring any information from CRU.
 >
 > Thus the Review demonstrated that CRU was not hiding anything:
 > sufficient data was available to replicate CRU’s results, and any
 > competent researcher would be able to analyse it. Furthermore, they
 > had nothing to hide: both adjusted and unadjusted data yielded very
 > similar results to CRUTEM, and CRU’s homogenisation adjustments make
 > no significant difference to the global average. Although the Review
 > stopped short of drawing scientific conclusions, it appears that
 > CRU’s conclusions are robust.
 >
 > Based on this, the Review concluded (its emphasis):
 >
 > CRU was not in a position to withhold access to [temperature] data or
 > tamper with it. We demonstrated that any independent researcher can
 > download station data directly from primary sources and undertake
 > their own temperature trend analysis.
 >
 > On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find
 > no evidence of bias. Our work indicates that analysis of global land
 > temperature trends is robust to a range of station selections and to
 > the use of adjusted or unadjusted data. The level of agreement
 > between independent analyses is such that it is highly unlikely that
 > CRU could have acted improperly to reach a predetermined outcome.
 > [1.3.1]
 >
 > This is stated more explicitly in Chapter 6:
 >
 > It is impossible for a third party to tamper improperly with the data
 > unless they have also been able to corrupt the GHCN and NCAR sources.
 > We do not consider this to be a credible possibility, and in any case
 > this would be easily detectable by comparison to the original NMO
 > records [6.4]
 >
 > The Review also considered the availability of metadata; that is,
 > whether there was enough information available to identically
 > replicate CRUTEM. As noted above, the computer code was no problem.
 > Getting an exact list of temperature stations included in CRUTEM was
 > more of an issue. Such a list was provided with the first version of
 > CRUTEM in 1986, but CRU neglected to update it in the latest version,
 > CRUTEM3, published in 2006. An up-to-date list was not released until
 > October 2007, in response to an FoI request. Even then, the Review
 > Team found it was not straightforward to identify all the stations,
 > due to a lack of standardisation. However, 90% could be matched with
 > stations in the GHCN database, and CRU informed them that the
 > remaining 10% could be obtained from other sources such as the
 > relevant National Meteorological Office. As a “test case”, the Review
 > did obtain data directly from the Japanese NMO.
 >
 > The Review makes the following criticism of CRU:
 >
 > CRU should have made available an unambiguous list of the stations
 > used in each of the versions of [CRUTEM] at the time of publication.
 > We find that CRU’s responses to reasonable requests for information
 > were unhelpful and defensive. [1.3.1]
 >
 > The inquiry also briefly dealt with the allegation “that Jones was
 > complicit in malpractice in failing to respond appropriately to
 > allegations of fraud made against […] Professor Wei-Chyung Wang”,
 > whose data Jones cited in a 1990 paper on the urban heat island
 > effect. The allegedly “fabricated” claim was that few if any of a
 > certain selection of Chinese weather stations had moved over time.
 > Wang’s university investigated and rejected the accusation of fraud.
 > Meanwhile, Jones responded within one year with a peer-reviewed
 > analysis confirming the original conclusions. In any case, this was
 > only one paper and does not change anything we know about the urban
 > heat island effect.
 >
 > The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the
 > extent to which CRU’s work in this area could be trusted and should
 > be relied upon and we find no evidence to support that implication.
 > [1.3.1]
 >
 > Despite being heralded as “the final nail in the coffin of
 > anthropogenic global warming”, Climategate has not even invalidated
 > CRU's results, let alone the conclusions of the climate science
 > community. In any case, the entire work of CRU comprises only a small
 > part of the large body of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.
 > That mountain of evidence cannot be explained away by the behaviour
 > of a few individuals.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web